Autism Speaks - is it good or is it bad?

Post Reply New Topic

I found it disturbing too, until I read what they meant by "their own"; namely, autistic people and their loved ones, so they don't only mean: in the autistic people's own words. That said, they might consider a more appropriate title of the series, maybe: in their own and their loved ones' words? (But that might be too long.)

I liked the article written by the mother anyway. Maybe she should have written in the beginning that it was her attempt to describe her child. But what she wrote about that "all say it must be so hard for my mother, but noone says that to me" - that's really one thing they need to hear at Autism Speaks.
Also, the problem addressed by you, Mysty, was also addressed by another in an answer to the essay, and it was answered that they would love getting more essays written by autistic people.

However, it's interesting that 9 out of the 10 "In their own words" essays were written by parents or the like of autistic children, and only one by a girl with PDD-NOS (a poem). Maybe we should be more people who wrote our thoughts?

Well, it's fine calling it "In their own words" when it's a parent talking about their own experiences. But a parent giving words to their autistic child, first, it should say up front that that is what it is, not afterwards; second, it just does not belong in a series called "In their own words". Put it in the blog, okay, but not as part of that series.

OK. I think i agree with you here.
They ought to be careful that they don't send a signal like "we don't think autistic people can speak for themselves, so we do it for them". That's not very smart, after what else we have seen from their hand.

They send that signal anyway. It highly annoys me.

If they want a parent to speak for a child who can't use language yet, why in the world aren't they just having the parent describe the child's behavior and non-verbal interactions? That's how they communicate, you know. Anybody knows, who's ever interacted with a young infant; they express their thoughts in the way they behave. Autistic non-verbal kids are the same (though the signals aren't the same; I think maybe parents of these kids must learn their languages, the same way I learned my cats' non-verbal language!)

Autism Speaks is so word-biased. It's ridiculous--it's like they think you haven't got anything to say if you can't talk.

How does that make being Autistic horrible as opposed to the society that shuns them? I think it says more about society.

I do not know what this Autism Speaks is. It is type of clan?

Its bad.... As I mentioned on another post related to autism speaks, its really mainly aimed for the low functioning side of the spectrum and its really up to the autistic individual if they want to get be cured, I wouldn't want that, I rather be accepted for who I'am, I'm sure some LFA people would feel the same like me?

They portray autism as a disease and everything, infact I just think that is totally a whole load of rubbish and its pure corruption there.
I wouldn't trust them if I was you.

- superboyian =O

What the guy above me said^^
I remember them when I was back on earth. Nasty pieces of work, even worse that Colonel Quadritch.

Ok does anyone else feel like we're being "punked" by Pandora? Or just trolled?

Who or what is Pandora?

Well, not to take this in an ugly direction, but years ago I got into survivalism, and the first rule of survivalism is that you can only count on yourself. Nature is a cold-hearted b***h, and it won't make room for those with handicaps or simply too lazy or too weak to cope.

If something bad happened and all the comforts of modern society were gone, you either pull yourself up by your own boot straps or you die. It's that simple. In fact, the explosion of so many people with varied health defects (often genetic) is the direct result of society interfering with the natural culling process nature would impose if it were not for our intellect devising ways to compensate.

So, in a way, I have mixed feelings about a "cure." Any condition that makes a person unfit to survive on their own wits and abilities is not desirable...at least from a survivalist standpoint.

So, if my condition would prevent me from being able to survive (or at least meaningfully contribute to a group of survivors in order to "earn" my daily bread), then I would want to be "cured" of it because I'm ultimately dependent on the charity of others to remain alive.

Outside of such a harsh environment, however, a tolerant and understanding society can find places for those with handicaps to meaningfully contribute...even if they are only able to do a fraction of what most people are capable of.

Dude, if anything, I think we'd have a better chance at survival. If all the comforts of modern society as you mentioned were gone, society( or whatever left of it) would have to look for the "artisans of old"--the specialists who know how to do a job, and do it right..and get it done efficiently. The last concern on their minds( hopefully) would be bullsh!t communication & socializing, but rather making sure they got thru the next day with clothes on their back and food in their stomachs; I think we'd be more likely to deliver in that case than anyone else ever would...

Within days, the NTs would descend to sitting in caves talking about how they totally saw a lion the other day, whereas the Aspies would be building the caves in the first place

It just dawned on me . . . Autism Speaks almost sounds like Scientology: They do this random crap to make money, and only end up appearing stupid when all is said and done. Wouldn't surprise me if a few of them were running that organization.

If Zeronetgain's apocalypse scenario ever came about, you would suddenly realize that communication and socializing are not bullsh!t. They are necessary for survival. There is a reason they evolved in our species as they did in so many other species. That reason would become starkly obvious in a survivalist situation.

I'm not a fan of Autism speaks.